Comments

MikeVandeman
4:30pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487
84297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb_dangerous
.htm .

For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtbfaq.htm .

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487
84297.
In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb_dangerous
.htm .
For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtbfaq.htm .MikeVandeman

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487
84297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb_dangerous
.htm .

For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtbfaq.htm .

Score: -101

brokenbanjo
10:23pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Awww, did a mountain biker wake you from under your bridge?

Awww, did a mountain biker wake you from under your bridge?brokenbanjo

Awww, did a mountain biker wake you from under your bridge?

Score: 60

svan123
10:22am Mon 24 Feb 14

Would you say mountain biking is more or less dangerous than being attacked by maniacs with saws?

What's this new concept of "volunteer hours"? Is it just to be used for stories about cyclists or are we going to use it for walkers lifted off fells or people stranded in Morecambe Bay.
Volunteers provide a fantastic service in many fields -caves, mountains, lifeboat etc but I hope we are not going start being judgemental about one kind of rescue against another.

What's this new concept of "volunteer hours"? Is it just to be used for stories about cyclists or are we going to use it for walkers lifted off fells or people stranded in Morecambe Bay.
Volunteers provide a fantastic service in many fields -caves, mountains, lifeboat etc but I hope we are not going start being judgemental about one kind of rescue against another.boris plasticmac

What's this new concept of "volunteer hours"? Is it just to be used for stories about cyclists or are we going to use it for walkers lifted off fells or people stranded in Morecambe Bay.
Volunteers provide a fantastic service in many fields -caves, mountains, lifeboat etc but I hope we are not going start being judgemental about one kind of rescue against another.

Score: 11

snuggle-bunny
5:28pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mike- you're a clown. End of

Mike- you're a clown. End ofsnuggle-bunny

Mike- you're a clown. End of

Score: 11

Qwackers
5:51pm Mon 24 Feb 14

are walking boots, red socks and rucksacks inanimate objects as well or do they get special dispensation? Do you use a car by any chance? Drive through the countryside?

are walking boots, red socks and rucksacks inanimate objects as well or do they get special dispensation? Do you use a car by any chance? Drive through the countryside?Qwackers

are walking boots, red socks and rucksacks inanimate objects as well or do they get special dispensation? Do you use a car by any chance? Drive through the countryside?

Score: 13

walksbikesclimbs
7:21pm Mon 24 Feb 14

For those of you who don't know Mr Vandeman, he is a man on a mission. He spends his time proclaiming that biking is the root of all evil, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he is a passionate golfer and collecter of classic muscle cars. So thats three hobbies he has which contribute to the erosion of the planet.
So to summarise, do what he says, not what he does, and you'll be alright. The stench of hypocrisy follows this man around like the tainted smell of self righteousness he wrongly feels is his perfume......

For those of you who don't know Mr Vandeman, he is a man on a mission. He spends his time proclaiming that biking is the root of all evil, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he is a passionate golfer and collecter of classic muscle cars. So thats three hobbies he has which contribute to the erosion of the planet.
So to summarise, do what he says, not what he does, and you'll be alright. The stench of hypocrisy follows this man around like the tainted smell of self righteousness he wrongly feels is his perfume......walksbikesclimbs

For those of you who don't know Mr Vandeman, he is a man on a mission. He spends his time proclaiming that biking is the root of all evil, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he is a passionate golfer and collecter of classic muscle cars. So thats three hobbies he has which contribute to the erosion of the planet.
So to summarise, do what he says, not what he does, and you'll be alright. The stench of hypocrisy follows this man around like the tainted smell of self righteousness he wrongly feels is his perfume......

Score: 20

simon_f_barnes
7:43pm Mon 24 Feb 14

luckily federal law does not yet obtain in the UK where we still benefit from the 1000 year old Common Law, though of course all law is very much moot when no enforcement exists...

luckily federal law does not yet obtain in the UK where we still benefit from the 1000 year old Common Law, though of course all law is very much moot when no enforcement exists...simon_f_barnes

luckily federal law does not yet obtain in the UK where we still benefit from the 1000 year old Common Law, though of course all law is very much moot when no enforcement exists...

Score: 10

get well soon
7:45pm Mon 24 Feb 14

MikeVandeman clearly has no morals if he thinks it's acceptable to use a news article about a cyclist who had the misfortune to injure himself, riding where he every right to be riding (in the UK, Mr Vandeman resides in the USA), to let the world know of his hatred for people who dare to ride cycles anywhere other than tarmac. He should be ashamed. But I doubt he is.

MikeVandeman clearly has no morals if he thinks it's acceptable to use a news article about a cyclist who had the misfortune to injure himself, riding where he every right to be riding (in the UK, Mr Vandeman resides in the USA), to let the world know of his hatred for people who dare to ride cycles anywhere other than tarmac. He should be ashamed. But I doubt he is.get well soon

MikeVandeman clearly has no morals if he thinks it's acceptable to use a news article about a cyclist who had the misfortune to injure himself, riding where he every right to be riding (in the UK, Mr Vandeman resides in the USA), to let the world know of his hatred for people who dare to ride cycles anywhere other than tarmac. He should be ashamed. But I doubt he is.

So he attacked someone with a saw, causing lacerations to their chest, and yet he still preaches his poison as if people havent realised he is a nutter

Well judging by his actions, this man is a right piece of work:
http://reviews.mtbr.
com/anti-mountain-bi
king-fanatic-mike-va
ndeman-arrested-for-
assault-with-a-deadl
y-weapon-against-two
-bikers
So he attacked someone with a saw, causing lacerations to their chest, and yet he still preaches his poison as if people havent realised he is a nutterwalksbikesclimbs

So he attacked someone with a saw, causing lacerations to their chest, and yet he still preaches his poison as if people havent realised he is a nutter

Score: 10

simon_f_barnes
9:42pm Mon 24 Feb 14

here's a shorter link to that article:
http://tinyurl.com/8
6rzrjy

here's a shorter link to that article:
http://tinyurl.com/8
6rzrjysimon_f_barnes

here's a shorter link to that article:
http://tinyurl.com/8
6rzrjy

Score: 5

simon_f_barnes
9:43pm Mon 24 Feb 14

ooops, the gazette inserts line breaks so it should read 86rzrjy at the end!

ooops, the gazette inserts line breaks so it should read 86rzrjy at the end!simon_f_barnes

ooops, the gazette inserts line breaks so it should read 86rzrjy at the end!

Score: 3

[deleted]
4:12pm Tue 25 Feb 14

[deleted]

I really hope the person is ok and the Mike, you are a c0ck!tictoc1

I really hope the person is ok and the Mike, you are a c0ck!

Score: 1

WilliamT
6:30pm Tue 25 Feb 14

This bloke is obviously a nutter, so we don't need to waste any more time on him. This is exactly what the emergency services are for- someone is out doing something and gets hurt. The chances are he is not a dithering wet, and actually was unable to come down under his own steam- for a contrast, see the other story about the walkers 'trapped' on a joke hill near Grange by cows and mud.

This bloke is obviously a nutter, so we don't need to waste any more time on him. This is exactly what the emergency services are for- someone is out doing something and gets hurt. The chances are he is not a dithering wet, and actually was unable to come down under his own steam- for a contrast, see the other story about the walkers 'trapped' on a joke hill near Grange by cows and mud.WilliamT

This bloke is obviously a nutter, so we don't need to waste any more time on him. This is exactly what the emergency services are for- someone is out doing something and gets hurt. The chances are he is not a dithering wet, and actually was unable to come down under his own steam- for a contrast, see the other story about the walkers 'trapped' on a joke hill near Grange by cows and mud.

Score: 0

Kendmoor
11:59pm Tue 25 Feb 14

That is an hilarious amount of down-votes!! :D

That is an hilarious amount of down-votes!! :DKendmoor

That is an hilarious amount of down-votes!! :D

Score: 5

scotty_4690
10:56am Wed 26 Feb 14

MikeVandeman wrote…

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487

84297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb_dangerous

.htm .

For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtbfaq.htm .

You talk complete and utter crap!i do a lot of biking.I have no problem with walkers and majority of walkers have no problem with bikers. You find a lot of rubbish that gets left in the countryside is left by walkers as bikers respect what we have! Do us all a favour,go up a mountain,get lost and don't bother coming back!

[quote][p][bold]MikeVandeman[/bold] wrote:
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487
84297.
In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb_dangerous
.htm .
For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtbfaq.htm .[/p][/quote]You talk complete and utter crap!i do a lot of biking.I have no problem with walkers and majority of walkers have no problem with bikers. You find a lot of rubbish that gets left in the countryside is left by walkers as bikers respect what we have! Do us all a favour,go up a mountain,get lost and don't bother coming back!scotty_4690

MikeVandeman wrote…

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487

84297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb_dangerous

.htm .

For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtbfaq.htm .

You talk complete and utter crap!i do a lot of biking.I have no problem with walkers and majority of walkers have no problem with bikers. You find a lot of rubbish that gets left in the countryside is left by walkers as bikers respect what we have! Do us all a favour,go up a mountain,get lost and don't bother coming back!

Score: 7

churchy66
6:35pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MikeVandeman wrote…

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487

84297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb_dangerous

.htm .

For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtbfaq.htm .

Good of you to air your ridiculous views! A person has been injured here, let us hope that he recovers quickly and doesn't read your diatribe, as know doubt his blood pressure will rocket sky high - like the majority of ours have reading the rubbish that you have subjected this site too. Take your views else where you muppet.

[quote][p][bold]MikeVandeman[/bold] wrote:
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487
84297.
In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtb_dangerous
.htm .
For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho
st.com/mtbfaq.htm .[/p][/quote]Good of you to air your ridiculous views! A person has been injured here, let us hope that he recovers quickly and doesn't read your diatribe, as know doubt his blood pressure will rocket sky high - like the majority of ours have reading the rubbish that you have subjected this site too. Take your views else where you muppet.churchy66

MikeVandeman wrote…

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/487

84297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtb_dangerous

.htm .

For more information: http://mjvande.nfsho

st.com/mtbfaq.htm .

Good of you to air your ridiculous views! A person has been injured here, let us hope that he recovers quickly and doesn't read your diatribe, as know doubt his blood pressure will rocket sky high - like the majority of ours have reading the rubbish that you have subjected this site too. Take your views else where you muppet.

Score: 3

Cas220
6:46pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Kendmoor wrote…

That is an hilarious amount of down-votes!! :D

I got 100th!

[quote][p][bold]Kendmoor[/bold] wrote:
That is an hilarious amount of down-votes!! :D[/p][/quote]I got 100th!Cas220

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here